CALIFORNIA, USA — Aerial fire retardant is one of the most important tools used to keep people and property safe during wildfires.
A lawsuit that recently made its way through court could have jeopardized the way wildfires are fought in the West, but a judge gave the OK for firefighters to keep using the chemical despite environmental concerns.
So, what does the ruling mean for California?
“It's probably the right decision at this point in time. It's one of our most effective tools that we have,” said UC Davis environmental toxicology professor, Ronald Tjeerdema.
The ruling from a U.S. District judge in Montana last month allows the government to keep using chemical retardant to fight wildfires even though the practice pollutes streams in western states — a violation of federal law.
Environmentalists sued the U.S. Forest Service for dropping the red slurry material hundreds of times into waterways over the last decade.
“The benefits outweigh the costs, the environmental costs, especially if it's managed properly and applied appropriately,” said Tjeerdema.
Government officials say chemical fire retardant is sometimes crucial to slowing the advance of dangerous fires as they’ve grown bigger and more destructive in North America.
“If you were just to use water and spray it to get a retardant effect, the water when it evaporates… that's the end of it,” said Tjeerdema.
More than 200 loads of retardant got into waterways over the last decade. Federal officials say those situations usually happened on accident and in less than 1% of the thousands of loads they dump annually.
Tjeerdema says a ruling against the use of aerial fire retardants likely wouldn’t have prevented other retardants from making their way into waterways.
“There's no perfect decision. You will still have situations where some retardant may get into water,” he said.
